Maryalice Hauer

Monday, May 9, 2016

The historically persistent issue of gender segregation is one that it is deeply rooted in, and reinforced by, our society. Gender segregation both in higher education and the labor force is a result of the gendered socialization process young men and women undergo within their social environment. Beginning in the earliest educational experiences, societal actors that include parents, educators, and the media, reinforce gender stereotypes by directing male and female students in opposing directions, fostering their interests and competencies in gender-divided subject areas. The gender-role stereotypes our society reinforces through gendered processes of socialization influence the development of young men and women, who become habituated to act in accordance with the expectations of their gender-role. Evidence of a gendered socialization process is prominently displayed in higher education, where a polarized distribution of male and female students across college majors has been discovered. Gender segregation is to be analyzed from the societal level, as it is an issue of socialization.Gender segregation in higher education and consequently the labor force can be attributed to societal influences that direct male and female students in opposing directions based on deep-rooted and persistent gender role expectations.

Bibliography

American Association of University Women., and Gender and Race on the Campus and in the School: Beyond Affirmative Action. Gender and Race On the Campus and in the School, Beyond Affirmative Action: Symposium Proceedings Featuring Current Research and Model Programs Presented At the June 19-21, 1997, College/university Symposium. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women, 1997.

My Argument: Gender segregation in higher education
and consequently the labor force can be attributed to societal influences that
direct male and female students in opposing directions based on deep-rooted and
persistent gender role expectations

An
argument made in “Influences on Students’ Choice of College Major” that I disagreed
w/ was the broad blanket statement that in regard to occupational
motivators, men more highly value income level and the potential for
upward mobility. I don't discount that the research done by Charles A.
Malgwi and other contributors demonstrated gendered-trends in occupational
preferences and work values. I do, however, disagree that the conclusion
can be drawn that men, in general, more highly value the monetary returns
of their work and the potential for leadership opportunities. This is a
gross generalization. Greater numbers of women enter the workforce every
year, with increasing numbers of single-parent households and financially independent
women. The world isn't was it used to be and the female gender has become
much more competitive as a force, rising to the nature of their male
counterparts. Perhaps if money wasn't a factor women would report more
highly valuing job satisfaction to income level. But the reality is that
money is a factor, for financially independent women as well as married
women contributing to a dual-income family, which has also become
increasingly more common and necessary with the rising costs of living. Therefore,
I disagree with the conclusion Charles. A Malgwi and contributors drew
from the research they collected. I see women today being equally motivated
by income level and the opportunity for upward mobility with their careers
to men, if not more so, as the monetary returns of work have become
increasingly relevant.

I’d
also like to tie in “Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in
Earnings” by Daymont and Adrisani, as a counterargument to the claim Malgwi
and contributors make in “Influences on Students’ Choice of College Major”.
“Job Preferences, College Major, and the Gender Gap in Earnings” discusses
how women, in the traditional gender-based division of household labor,
have historically bore the greater share of childcare and household responsibilities.
Both being non-income activities. Claiming that men “value” income more
highly than women do is a weak assertion in that it discounts the simple
fact that men, historically, have been in charge of providing the family
income. That has been their gender role in the traditional household
division of labor. So although women have met the responsibilities imposed
on them by their gender role in the traditional household division of labor,
which involves non-income activates, that does not signify the lack of value for
the monetary returns of work.

Further,
Nancy D. Hall in “Strategies that Enhance the Persistence of Older Female
Graduate Students”, discusses how the female role
in the gender-based division of household labor is particularly
constraining, as it is not conducive of a professional career. The role
women need to fill, meeting non-income responsibilities at the expense of pursuing
a high-level income career, is a hindrance on their professional development.
Filling a gendered role imposed by society, that does not include the
generation of income, does not imply a lack of value for income level or
upward advancement.

American Association of University Women., and Gender and
Race on the Campus and in the School: Beyond Affirmative Action. Gender and
Race On the Campus and in the School, Beyond Affirmative Action: Symposium
Proceedings Featuring Current Research and Model Programs Presented At the June
19-21, 1997, College/university Symposium. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of University Women, 1997.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

The case my research paper is making is that gender segregation is deeply rooted in, and reinforced by, our society. The different socialization processes male and female students experience, influences both their interests and perceptions of personal ability, directing them towards different subject areas. This manifests itself in college, where an evident unequal distribution of male and female students across college majors has been discovered. This trend projects into the labor force, which also remains segregated by gender. Why are men socialized in a way that habituates them to be more competitive, more prone to take risks, whereas women are socialized in a way that encourages them to be organized, helpful, get goof grades, and be largely more submissive. When we look at issues today, such as the gender gap in earnings, we can attribute them to the socialization process. Men are more likely than women to negotiate higher salaries, to pursue more challenging careers with higher income levels, and to take greater risks that sometimes bring about greater rewards. In regard to the gender gap in college majors, a variety of studies have concluded that while male students are more likely to chose majors in fields based on income level and opportunity for career advancement, female students are more likely to chose majors based on aptitude in the subject area. This is also a reflection of the socialization process. Women pursue college majors and careers with a mentality that they need to avoid risk and failure, and this greatly limits their opportunities for career advancement and higher income levels. This form of socialization speaks greatly to the fact that women are still largely underrepresented in STEM fields today. The case my research paper is making is that gender segregation in college majors and the workforce, and the consequential gender wage gap, is a societal level issue of socialization.

The image displayed here depicts the median earning among 2008 college graduates in 2012. There is a lot of debate surrounding the gender wage gap that exists today. I chose the image above because it negates several of the arguments that have been made that deny the existence of the gender wage gap, or say that is an issue of the past which has since been corrected. The image clearly depicts the existence of a gender wage gap as well as it's persistence into 2012, a mere four years ago. Clearly, gender segregation in the work force and a consequential gender gap in earnings still exists today. Also, there has been controversy surrounding the issue, in that many will argue that the gap in wages is a result of men pursuing higher-level income careers and women working in lower-level income job fields, such as education or health sciences. The image above however negates this statement and shows wage gaps by field. Women in engineering and computer sciences, high-level income fields that are traditionally male dominated, are still making significantly less than their male counterparts. I plan to include this image in my presentation and final paper because it is effective in illustrating the gender wage gap which is a result of gender segregation, which my topic addresses.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Social scientists
have suggested a multitude of theories to better explain, and account for, sex
segregation in college major choice. “Preferences,
Constraints, and the Process of Sex Segregation in college majors: A Choice
Analysis” offers the theory of “Gender Essentialism”,
which emphasizes the influence of gender stereotypes. Essentialism theory
regards college major choice as “an instance where individuals behave in
accordance with societal expectations of what constitutes gender-appropriate
behavior,” (Ochsenfeld, 119). This theory suggests that we, as a culture,
cultivate gender stereotypes and expectations, and instill them in children at
a young age which guides their development of interests and self-concept. Gender
essentialism claims that “culturally dominant stereotypes learned during
childhood and adolescence guide the development of strongly gendered tastes,”
based on which women and men form “systematically different” college major
preferences and vocational interests” (Ochsenfeld, p119). Gender essentialism
attributes gendered college major preferences to societal influences that have
reinforced gender stereotypes throughout children’s development, depicting
parents and educators as major actors in the influence process. Gender
essentialism holds that parents and educators with gender-biased perceptions,
direct male and female student’s interests in diverging directions, which
influence their self-perception and development of competencies in various subject
areas. Male students feel more competent in math, where they are most
encouraged by parents and teachers, and therefore gravitate more towards
math-intensive subject areas throughout their educational careers. Gender
Essentialism views gender segregation in higher education and the labor force
as a result of deeply-rooted gender stereotypes, reinforced throughout
childhood, that influence the development male and female student’s interest
and aptitude in different subject areas.

Another theoretical
frame to analyze gender segregation that “Preferences,
Constraints, and the Process of Sex Segregation in college majors: A Choice
Analysis”provides is the theory of “Separate Spheres”.Separate Spheres explains gender segregation
in higher education and the work force “against the backdrop of the fact that
men and women have historically assumed different roles in the household,”
(Ochsenfeld, p120). The theory of Separate Spheres claims that men and women
internalize these gender roles early in their development, and allow them to
direct their academic and occupational preferences. For example, because men
predominantly adopt the “breadwinner role” in the household, they tend to value
material rewards more highly than women do. This would serve as an explanation
as to why men pursue occupations based on income-level, more so than women. Male
students feel more pressure to pursue majors with higher pay grades and opportunities
for career advancement because they feel they need to meet the societal
expectation that they one day support a family. In contrast, women, who have
historically been in charge of childrearing and keeping up with the household,
will gravitate more towards occupational fields that allow for a work-life
balance. And women feel more pressure to pursue majors in fields that will
accommodate work-life balance, to satisfy their future gender-typical role as a
mother and housewife. “Separate Spheres” attributes gender segregation to
the influence of historically rooted gender role expectations on the
educational and occupational preferences of men and women.

“College major
choice, occupational structure and demographic patterning by gender, race, and
nativity” analyzes whether occupational segregation influences college major
choice. The information used is derived from the National Education
Longitudinal Studies (NELS), which provides information on college majors, as
well as the Public Use of Micro data (PUMS), which provides occupational
structure information. The author uses these two sources of information to
integrate stratification research both in higher education and the labor
market, in aim to prove that college major choice is the link between the two.
This article examines occupational segregation by gender, race, and ethnicity,
but for my purposes, I will focus segregation by gender. Results of the cross
comparison between these two sources of information demonstrate that the most
evident gender divide, in both occupation and college major choice
distribution, lies between technical and life/health science fields, with women
more predominantly majoring and later working in life-health science fields
than men.

4.Author

Yingyi Ma earned her Ph.D from
Johns Hopkins University in 2006, with focuses in education, migration, and
gender.Ma has written over 15 published
scholarly articles in the last five years, as well as a book. She has raised
hundreds of dollars in funds for education research in her specialized subject
areas. I believe this author is an extremely reputable source to include in my
final paper, not only based on her extensive research, but based on the
diversity of her research areas. This article is unique in that includes race and
ethnicity in its analysis of education and labor market segregation. I believe the
inclusion of this perspective will be an interesting addition to my paper.

5.Key Terms

●National
Education Longitudinal Study (NELS 1988-1994): provides information on
college major and precollege information that may influence college major
choice

-Superior to other national data sets because these
three-digit codes allow for the inclusion of 500 occupations in the data set

6.Quotes (3)

“Previous studies investigating the
factors leading to college major choice examine the micro level influences,
such as abilities and interests...This study, while recognizing the importance
of those factors, focuses on...the macro influences of the social environment
at the societal level.” (115)

“Friends and siblings, teachers and
parents are agents of socialization, encouraging students to cultivate their
competence and interest in a particular domain field.” (115)

“For example, work traditionally
associated with women, such as the caring and nurturing professions, is
devalued. More generally, women receive less compensation working in
female-dominated jobs than in male-dominated or gender-neutral jobs.” (116)

7.Value

This article holds a lot of value, in several regards.
First, although the focus of my paper will remain on gender segregation, it
might be interesting to include some of the segregation by race and ethnicity
that this article discusses. Particularly, the fact that sex segregation for
Whites is the most severe among the four racial groups (White, Asian, Hispanic,
and Black). It might be interesting to go into the implications of this
finding, and tie that into my discussion of the societal influences that affect
college major choice and, consequently, career trajectory. I also find this
article's discussion of societal influences. Particularly its terminology,
referring to family, peers, and educators as “agents of socialization” in a
student's’ development. In conclusion, I think the most valuable aspect of this
article is its final conclusion, which serves almost as a “bird's-eye view” of
the entire phenomenon. This article's claim is that “seemingly individual
choice of college major has deep structural roots at the societal level.” This
is a broad claim, with may implication, that will be of value to my paper in
that it will generate a great deal of discussion. I may choose to use this
article as a focal point of reference in my final paper.